[aprssig] APRS IS Issue ?

AE5PL Lists HamLists at ametx.com
Mon Mar 3 05:40:28 EST 2008

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stan N0YXV
> Posted At: Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [aprssig] APRS IS Issue ?
> 1.) We knew for a month that 3rd and 4th would be gone. Why wasn't a
> new
> THIRD put into place before the deadline? Why did we have to wait
> the
> two remaining servers were full before we figured out that we needed
> increase the threshold on FIRST? Wonder what would have happended if
> had
> run out of capacity during a big disaster like a Katrina? The object
> servers shouldn't be to meet the demand but to be able to have enough
> overhead for the unexpected.

They didn't "wait until the two remaining servers were full".  Operating
a disparate server group by individuals requires hardware, bandwidth,
and commitment from all involved.  This doesn't happen overnight.  Your
analysis is, as pointed out in previous posts, far oversimplified and
therefore misleading.

As far as capacity, the core servers have more than enough capacity for
Amateur Radio requirements and have had for some time.  Remember that
these core sysops are volunteers donating their hardware, bandwidth, and
sweat (to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year).  None are
compensated in any way for their efforts.

> 2.) When it was decided that the core take on the CWOP program it
> appear that there wasn't a lot of preplaining. I mean we knew long
> before
> the core took the project on that weather stations reported in a 5
> minute
> (or less) fashion. Couldn't a person calculate the amount of traffic

That is an inaccurate statement.  At the time the core sysops agreed to
be the central upload point for CWOP, CWOP was not reporting on 5 minute
intervals and there were about 2/3 of the current CWOP stations.  As was
also stated before, there has been some bad software design on the part
of the CWOP authors over the past year which, combined with a
substantial increase in CWOP station, has caused this issue.  Also as
stated earlier, it is not the issue of CWOP hitting the core servers, it
is the issue of CWOP hitting APRS-IS.  The good thing is that because
the CWOP stations were primarily hitting the core servers, we were able
to isolate the problem long before it caused wide-spread problems.

> server resources from what was already an exsisting service? Not to
> anticipate a growth in CWOP data and plan ahead would seam to be a
> mistake. (Sounds like that was already admitted to but just wanted to
> bring
> it up to get it back into the discussion.)
> I'll get my flame suit ready but my intent isn't to put more salt into
> old
> wounds but to see if there isn't something we can learn from our past
> mistakes so that we don't repeat them.

Quit trying to blame the core sysops for this problem and you won't get
justifiably flamed.  They preplanned as well as they could.  They could
not foresee the effect of the shoddy programming practices of the CWOP
software authors nor could they foresee the impact that software would
have on the network.  They did, however, try to get the CWOP managers to
avert this problem with a "how-to" white paper for CWOP software authors
last spring.  The CWOP managers refused to distribute the white paper
and we got what we got.

You should put your flame suit on because all you have done is cast
aspersions on the core sysops based on inaccurate and incomplete
knowledge.  You should apologize to them for your inaccurate assumptions
and casting aspersions on a volunteer group of dedicated hams which did
(and do) try to plan for as much as they can.  In most cases, hindsight
is 20-20.  In your case, it is blind because you have no knowledge of
what to look back upon.

I am not a core sysop nor do I have the facilities or time to donate to
be one.  I do admire the resilience of the core sysops to receive
misdirected criticisms from the uninformed and keep on donating their
time and facilities.  Unfortunately, it is misdirected criticism like
this that helped us lose two of our core servers.


Pete Loveall AE5PL
pete at ae5pl dot net

More information about the aprssig mailing list